Case Law Update

The recent decisions from the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) suggest that the tribunal's willingness to award adverse cost awards to owners depends on their conduct in response to compliance letters from the condominium corporation and their efforts to resolve complaints and participate in the CAT process.

In the case of York Condominium Corporation No. 229 v. Rockson, the CAT ordered the owner, Mr. Rockson, to pay costs of $9,648.51 to the condominium corporation (YCC 229) for legal fees incurred to enforce compliance with Noise Rules. Despite YCC 229's success, the CAT refused to order soundproofing of Mr. Rockson's unit and neighboring units due to lack of criteria and clarity on noncompliance.

In Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1767 v. Isa Ahmed et al., the CAT held the tenants responsible for $4,657.11 in costs related to cleaning up after their dog's bathroom habits, enforcing compliance with governing documents, and the CAT proceeding. The unit owner was not held liable for costs due to his efforts to resolve the issue and assurances from TSCC 1767 that they would not seek costs against him.

In Sarros v. York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1445, the CAT interpreted the term 'seasonal furniture' and ordered the owner, Mr. Sarros, to remove gym equipment from his balcony, rejecting his claim that it had been reconfigured as seasonal furniture. However, no costs were awarded in this case as Mr. Sarros modified the structure after being advised by the condominium corporation.